RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS

Page 1 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
B. Admissibility • Positive evidence - when a witness affirms that a fact did
or did not occur. This is entitled to greater weight since
Rule 130. Rules of Admissibility witness relates matters within his personal knowledge.

• Multiple admissibility - when evidence is relevant and

competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should
be admitted for any and all the purposes for which it is
offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its
admissibility. (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium [Vol.
II], pp. 694-695).
• Negative evidence - a witness states that an event did not
occur or that the facts alleged to exist did not actually exist.
A. Object (Real) Evidence

• Conditional admissibility - where the evidence at the time
it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is
connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved,
such evidence may be received on the condition that the
other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence
will be stricken out.
• (gustatory), or smell (olfactory).
Curative admissibility - when a party offers an
inadmissible fact which is received because there is no
objection by the other party. The other party does not
acquire the right to introduce in reply to the same kind of
evidence, except whenever it is needed for removing an
unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from
the original evidence.
• ➢ When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
Direct evidence - refers to evidence that directly proves a
fact without need to make inference from another fact.
• (a) Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy,
Circumstantial evidence - refers to proof of the fact or
facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the
existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a
necessary or probable consequence.
Sec. 1. Object as evidence
• Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of
the court.
• Object evidence includes any article or object which may
be known or perceived by the use of any of the senses –
sight (visual), hearing (auditory), touch (tactile), taste
• Documents may be considered object evidence if the same
are presented for the following purposes: (a) to prove their
existence or condition or the nature of the handwritings
thereon; and (b) to determine the age of the paper used or
the blemishes or alterations thereon.
• Requisites for admissibility:
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
➢ Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and
rely on testimonial evidence alone if:
morals or decency;
▪ But if viewing is necessary in the interest
of  justice, the evidence may still be exhibited but
the court may exclude the public from such view.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 2 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
▪ Viewing may not be refused if the indecent or
immoral object constitutes the very basis for the
criminal or civil action.
(b) To require that it be viewed in court or in an ocular
inspection would result in delays, inconvenience and
expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of
such object;
(c) Such object evidence would be confusing or
misleading;  and
(d) Testimonial or documentary evidence already
presented clearly portrays the object in question as
to render viewing unnecessary.
• Demonstrative evidence - is evidence in the form of a
representation of an object. This is, as opposed to, real
evidence, testimony, or other forms of evidence used at trial.
Demonstrative evidence is useful in assisting a finder of fact
(fact-finder) in establishing context among the facts
presented in a case.
• Autoptic preference - in legal parlance, simply means a
tribunal's self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself.
(Balingit v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 170300, 9 February 2007).
It is referred to as the evidential datum which decision-
makers will perceive using their five senses (Anderson,
Schum, and Twining, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd Ed.).
• Chain of Custody Rule – a method of authenticating
evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from
the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in
the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change
in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have possession of the same (People of
the Philippines v. Dalawis, G.R. No. 179128, 9 November
2015; People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199087, 11 November
2015).
➢ The rule on chain of custody under the Section 21, R.A.
No. 9165 and its implementing rules expressly demands
the identification of the persons who handle the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the
accused until the time they are presented in
court.  Moreover, as a method of authenticating
evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question
is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered in evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and
from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition
in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not
in the chain to have possession of the same.
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of
the seized drugs or other related items immediately
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 3 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
after they are seized from the accused. In this case,
however, the records are bereft of any evidence, which
would clearly show that the said plastic sachets were
indeed marked in the presence of the accused. Nor
was there any evidence as to the identity of the
individual who brought the seized plastic sachets from
the police station to the PNP (Carlito Valencia v.
People, G.R. No. 198804, 22 January 2014).
➢ It would include testimony about every link in the chain,
from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered into evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, where it was and what happened
to it while in the witnesses' possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain.
➢ In warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, consistent with the
"chain of custody" rule (People v. Joselito Beran, G.R.
No. 203028, 15 January 2014).
➢ Although ideally the prosecution should offer a
perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence,
"substantial compliance with the legal requirements
on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient. This
Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting
officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements
under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural
lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized
inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. In other words, to be
admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able
to present through records or testimony, the
whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time
these were seized from the accused by the arresting
officers; turned-over to the investigating officer;
forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their
composition; and up to the time these are offered in
evidence. For as long as the chain of custody
remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the
procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of
the accused will not be affected (People v. Ortega,
G.R. No. 207392, 2 July 2014).
➢ Although the Court has recognized that minor
deviations from the procedures under R.A. No. 9165
would not automatically exonerate an accused, we
have also declared that when there is gross
disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in
the substantive law (R.A. No. 9165), serious
uncertainty is generated about the identity of the
seized items that the prosecution presented in
evidence. This doubt cannot be remedied by simply
invoking the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties, for a gross,
systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural
safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the
performance of official duties (People v. Edaño, G.R.
No. 188133, 7 July 2014).
➢ The failure of the prosecution to show that the police
officers conducted the required physical inventory in
the place where the subject shabu was seized does
not automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or
the items seized from him inadmissible. A proviso
was added in the implementing rules that "non-
compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 4 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items."
Pertinently, it is the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items which must be
proven to establish the corpus delicti.
The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. The
concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of
shabu was proven by the prosecution. The chain of
custody does not appear to have been broken. The
recovery and handling of the seized drugs were
satisfactorily established. As correctly found by the
appellate court, "no ‘break’ whatsoever in the chain
of custody of the prohibited drugs occurred. The
testimonial, documentary, and object evidence
presented by the prosecution established every link
in the custody of the prohibited drugs. This leads to
no other conclusion than that the specimen
examined by the forensic chemist, which tested
positive for shabu, and which were presented as
evidence during the trial, were the ones taken from
accused-appellant during the buy-bust
operation." (People v. Fang, G.R. No. 199874, 23
July 2014).
➢ A buy bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-
coordination with the PDEA (People v. Lafaran, G.R. No.
208015, 14 October 2015).
➢ Essential links in the chain of custody of seized
illegal drugs:
(a) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
(b) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
(c) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
(d) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
(People v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr., G.R. No.
179344, 3 August 2011).
➢ As provided by the implementing rules and
jurisprudence, strict compliance of the requisites under
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 can be disregarded
as long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the
illegal drug are properly preserved; and its preservation
can be well established if the chain of custody of illegal
drug was unbroken. (People v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr.,
G.R. No. 179344, 3 August 2011).
➢ Testimony on perfect chain not required -- The
Supreme Court held that, “undeniably, a testimony about
a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain...what is
of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items.” An astute
perusal of Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 readily
reveals that the custodial chain rule is not to be
rigorously applied, provided "the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team." Thus,
the supposed procedural infirmities alleged by
Quiamanlon with regard to the custody, photographing,
inventory, and marking of the seized items do not, in any
manner, affect the prosecution of the instant case and do
not render her arrest illegal or the items seized from her
inadmissible (People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198,
26 January 2011).
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 5 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
➢ Presentation of confidential informant not
indispensable -- The non-presentation of the
confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution’s
case. The presentation of an informant is not a requisite
in the prosecution of drug cases. The failure to present
the informant does not vitiate the prosecution’s cause as
his testimony is not indispensable to a successful
prosecution for drug-pushing since it would be merely
corroborative of, and cumulative with, that of the poseur-
buyer who was presented in court and testified on the
facts and circumstances of the sale and delivery of the
prohibited drug. (People v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, 7
February 2011).
➢ Failure to immediately mark seized drugs -- The
failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not
automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items have been preserved, as these would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused. What is essential is that the police officers
account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of
seized illegal drugs. (People v. Morales, G.R. No.
188608, 9 February 2011).
➢ Failure to take photographs and inventory the same is
not fatal as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of
seized illegal drugs were preserved. In People v. Presas
(G.R. No. 182525, 2 March 2011), the Supreme Court
noted that the failure of the prosecution to show that the
police officers conducted the required physical inventory
and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to
said guidelines, does not automatically render accused’s
arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
Notably, the implementing rules of the IRR provide that
"non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items." The same provision also states that it
must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds
and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence have been preserved.
➢ Failure to sign the receipt- The fact that the Receipt/
Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Atty.
Gaspe does not undermine the integrity and evidentiary
value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-
appellants. The failure to strictly comply with the
prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs
does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the
items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is
of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused (People v. Punzalan, G.R.
No. 199087, 11 November 2015).
➢ Presumption of regularity, standing alone, cannot
defeat the presumption of innocence -- The
presumption that the police officers regularly performed
their duty cannot, standing alone, defeat the
presumption of innocence of the accused. Generally, law
enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed
their duty,  but this is a mere procedural presumption
which cannot overturn the constitutionally recognized
presumption of innocence of the accused where lapses
in the buy bust operation are shown. An effect of this
lapse, as held in Lopez v. People, is to negate the
presumption that official duties have been regularly
performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity
affects the whole performance and should make the
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 6 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
presumption unavailable (People v. Martin, G.R. No. ➢ a negative allegation does not have to be proven unless
193234, 19 October 2011). the same is an essential part of the cause of action or
defense.
➢ However, in civil cases, even if a negative allegation is
• Burden of proof and burden of evidence an essential part of the defense, such does not have to
➢ Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present be proven if it is only for the purpose of denying the
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his existence of a document which would properly be in the
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by custody of the adverse party.
law. (Rule 131, Sec. 1). ➢ If the criminal charge is predicated on a negative
➢ Burden of evidence is the duty resting upon a party, by allegation or that a negative averment is an essential
means of evidence, to create or meet a prima facie case. element of the crime - the prosecution has the burden of
➢ Burden of proof never shifts, while burden of evidence is proving the charge.
transferred from one litigant to another depending on the ➢ Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct
progress of trial. proof, or where the facts are more immediately within the
knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests on
him.
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence
• Equipoise or equiponderance doctrine
Civil cases – The burden is Both civil and criminal
on the party who would be cases – The burden lies ➢ Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or
defeated if no evidence were with the party who asserts there is doubt on which side the evidence
given on either side. an affirmative allegation. preponderates, the party having the burden of proof fails
Criminal cases – The burden upon that issue. (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
is always on the No. 115625, January 23, 1998).
prosecution. ➢ Therefore, as neither party was able to make out a case,
neither side could establish its cause of action and
The burden of proof does The burden of evidence prevail with the evidence it had. They are thus no better
not shift as it remains shifts from party to party off than before they proceeded to litigate, and, as a
throughout the trial with the depending on the consequence thereof, the courts can only leave them as
party upon whom it is exigencies of the case in the they are (Rivera, supra citing Municipality of Candijay,
imposed. course of the trial. Bohol v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 530).
➢ The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory
The burden of proof is The burden of evidence is facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
generally determined by the generally determined by the explanations, one of which is consistent with the
pleading filed by the party. developments of the trial or innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
by provisions of law. his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfil the test of
moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a
• Negative allegations
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 7 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
conviction. (Bernardino v. People, G.R. Nos. 170453 and ➢ The rule is applicable when the subject of inquiry is the
170518, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 237, 25). contents of a document (Rule 130, Sec. 3).
➢ The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of
a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be
B. Documentary Evidence introduced concerns external facts, such as the
existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without
• Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other invoked (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez and Clave,
modes of written expression offered as proof of their G.R. No. 170604, 2 September 2013).
contents (Rule 130, Sec.2).
• A document is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized
paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth.
(U.S. v. Orera, 11 Phil 596) ➢ does NOT apply when:
• Documentary evidence is that which is furnished by written (a) to prove facts collateral to the issues, such as the
instruments, inscriptions and documents of all kinds. (32 nature, appearance or condition of physical objects
CJS 475) or to evidence relating to a matter which does not
come from the foundation of the cause of action
• Requisites for admissibility: or defense; or
(a) the document must be relevant; (b) when a party uses a document to prove the
existence of an independent fact, as to which the
(b) the evidence must be authenticated; writing is merely collateral or incidental (Lee v.
People G.R. No. 159288, 19 October 1 2004).
(c) the document must be authenticated by a competent
witness; and
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced;
(d) the document must be formally offered in evidence. exceptions

• Meaning of original
Sec. 2. Documentary Evidence The following are considered originals of a document:
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of
1. Best Evidence Rule which are the subject of inquiry (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at
• Best evidence rule, defined or about the same time, with identical contents, all
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, such copies are equally regarded as originals (Rule
no evidence shall be admissible other than the original 130, Sec. 4);
document itself (Rule 130, Sec. 3). (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or near the
• When applicable
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 8 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(d) An electronic document shall be regarded as the
equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately. (Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 1);
(e) Copies as equivalent of the originals – When a
document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time with identical contents, or is a
counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or
by other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduces the original. (Rules on Electronic Evidence,
Sec. 2)
• Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, copies or
duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the
original if:
➢ a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original; or
➢ in the circumstance it would be unjust or inequitable to
admit the copy in lieu of the original. (Rules on Electronic
Evidence, Sec. 2)
Sec. 4. Original of document
2. Secondary Evidence
Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable
Sec. 6. When original document is in adverse party’s
custody or control
Sec. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer
it.
• Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
Secondary evidence is allowed in the following instances:
(1) When original is unavailable (Rule 130, Sec. 5) – there
must be proof by satisfactory evidence of:
a. due execution of the original;
➢ how to prove due execution:
i. testimony of person/s who executed
document;
ii. testimony of the person before whom its
execution was acknowledged; or
iii. any person who was present and saw it
executed and delivered or who thereafter
saw it and recognized the signatures, or
one to whom the parties thereto had
previously confessed the execution thereof
b. loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals;
and
c. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search
for or attempt to produce the original.
✓ Secondary evidence which could be introduced after
proving unavailability of the original (in the order
stated):
i. Copy of said document;
ii. Recital of its contents in an authentic
document; or
iii. Recollection of witnesses.
✓ Nevertheless, where the law specifically provides for
the class and quantum of secondary evidence to
establish the contents of a document, or bars
secondary evidence of a lost document, such
requirement is controlling.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 9 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
(2) When original is in adverse party’s custody or
control – requisites:
a. Document is in the custody or under the control of
adverse party;
b. He must have reasonable notice to produce it;
c. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its
existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the
case of its loss.
✓ Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as
where it is for the recovery or annulment of
documents wrongfully obtained or withheld by the
other party, no notice to produce said documents is
required. (Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. v. Buenaflor,
36 OG 3290)
✓ A party who calls for the production of a document
and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as
evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 8).
(3) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of
the whole. (Rule 130, Sec. 3[c]). – requisites:
a. the voluminous character of the records must be
established; and
b. such records must be made accessible to the
adverse party so that their correctness may be tested
on cross-examination
(4) When the original is a public record
➢ When the original of document is in the custody of
public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued
by the public officer in custody thereof.
3. Parol Evidence Rule
Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is
a public record
Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements
• The written agreement is already considered to contain all
the things agreed upon. Being a final agreement any
extraneous evidence or parol evidence is inadmissible for
any of the following purposes: (a) to modify, (b) to explain; or
(c) to add to the terms of the written agreement.
• Parol Evidence refers to any evidence aliunde, whether
oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or
contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied
in a document.
• Requisites for the application of Parol Evidence Rule
a. There is a valid contract;
b. The terms of agreement reduced to writing;
c. There is an issue as to the terms of agreement;
d. The dispute is between parties and their successors in
interest (Rule 130, Sec. 9).
• When parol evidence can be introduced:
A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to
the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
• An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
• The failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
• The validity of the written agreement; or
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 10 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
• The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or agreements on the matter are merged therein. (De Guzman
their successors in interest after the execution of the v. Calma, 100 Phil 1008).
written agreement. (Rule 130, Sec. 9)

• In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol

evidence to be admitted: first, that the existence of any of
the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party’s • Parol Evidence Rule v. Best Evidence Rule
pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party;
and second, that the parol evidence sought to be presented
serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by the
Parol Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule
presenting party (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa Construction and
Development, G.R. No. 171601, 8 April 2015). Original document is available Original writing is not available
in court. and/or there is a dispute as to
• The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply, and may not whether said writing is the
properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against original.
the other, where at least one party to the suit is not a party
or privy of a party to the written instrument in question and The rule prohibits the varying of The rule prohibits the
does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the the terms of a written agreement. introduction of substitutionary
instrument of the relation established thereby. Thus, if one of evidence in lieu of the original
the parties is a complete stranger to the contract, he is not document.
bound by the rule. (See Rule 130, Sec. 9, par. 1)
With the exception of wills, this The rule applies to all kinds of
• Parol evidence cannot be introduced to alter or modify the rule applies only to documents writings.
express terms of the “Kasunduan.” It is settled that the which are contractual in nature
agreement or contract between the parties is the formal (“written agreements”).
expression of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations and This rule can be invoked only This rule can be invoked by any
is the best evidence of the parties’ intention. Thus, when the when the controversy is between party to an action regardless of
terms of an agreement have been reduced into writing, it is the parties to the written whether or not such party has
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and agreement, their privies, or any participated in the writing
there can be, between the parties and their successors in party directly affected thereby, involved.
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents e.g. cestui que trust.
of the written agreement (Carganillo v. People, G.R. No.
182424, 22 September 2014). 

• Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that when

the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular
matter into writing, all their previous and contemporaneous
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 11 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
4. Interpretation of documents
Sec. 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal
meaning
Sec. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all
provisions
Sec. 12. Interpretations according to intention; general
and particular provisions
Sec. 13. Interpretation according to circumstances
Sec. 14. Peculiar signification of terms
Sec. 15. Written words control printed
Sec. 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in
explaining certain writings
Sec. 17. Of two constructions, which preferred
Sec. 18. Construction in favor of natural right
Sec. 19. Interpretation according to usage
C. Testimonial Evidence
1. Qualification of witnesses
Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications
• All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
their known perception to others, may be witnesses (Rule
130, Sec. 20).
• Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the
case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by
law, shall not be ground for disqualification (Rule 130, Sec.
20).
• Competency vs. credibility of a witness
➢ A competent witness is one who is not excluded by law
or the Rules of Court from being a witness.
Competency is determined by the prevailing
exclusionary rules of evidence.
➢ A credible witness is one who being competent to give
evidence, is worthy of belief (Black’s Law Dictionary).
➢ It is well-settled that the determination of the credibility
of the witnesses is correctly assigned to the trial court,
which is in the best position to observe the demeanor
and bodily movements of all the witnesses (People v.
Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, 11 December 2013).
Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity
or immaturity
• The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their
production for examination, is such that they are
incapable of intelligently making known their perception
to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render
them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which
they are examined and of relating them truthfully (Rule
130, Sec. 21)
• Minority, alone, is not a sufficient ground for disqualification.
Leeway should be given to witnesses who are minors,
especially when they are relating past incidents of abuse
(People v. Dominguez, G.R. No. 191065, 13 June 2011).
Thus, a child may still be a witness as long as the
following are shown:
(a) capacity of observation;
(b) capacity of recollection; and
(c) capacity of communication (People v. Mendoza, G.R.
No. 113791, 22 February 1996, 254 SCRA 18).
• Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility (People
v. Rosales, G.R. No. 197537, 24 July 2013).
• Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time of the event
testified to affects only his or her credibility. As long as
the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and gives
sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded,
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 12 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
she is a competent witness even if she is a mental retardate
(People v. Maceda, G.R. No. 138805, 28 February 2001,
353 SCRA 228).
Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage
• General Rule: During their marriage, spouses may not
testify for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse. (Rule 130, Sec. 22).
• Exceptions:
➢ In a civil case by one against the other; or
➢ In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants. (Rule 130, Sec. 22).
• Requisites for spousal immunity
(a) Valid marriage; and
(b) Other spouse is a party to the action.
• Waiver of spousal immunity
The objection to the competency of the spouse must be
made when he or she is first offered as a witness. Failure
to make a timely objection is tantamount to waiver of
spousal immunity (People v. Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634.
12 September 2002).
• Spousal immunity in cases where a spouse is jointly
charged with other accused:
The testimony of a wife of an accused, when timely objected
to, is inadmissible against the latter. However, the same may
be admitted as against other persons jointly charged in said
case. (People v. Quidato, Jr. G.R. No. 140634, 12
September 2002).
• Estranged spouses
The disqualification does not apply in case of estranged
spouses. Where the marital and domestic relations are so
strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor
peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason
based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a
case, identity of interests disappears and the consequent
danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.
Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of
private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing
but ideals, which through their absence, merely leave a void
in the unhappy home (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439,
14 October 2005).
Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity
of adverse party
• Dead man’s statute or survivor’s disqualification rule,
where applicable
➢ cases against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person upon a claim or
demand against the estate of a deceased person; or
➢ against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such person of unsound
mind (Rule 130, Sec. 23).
• When not applicable
➢ Ordinary witnesses, who are not the plaintiff, assignor
of plaintiff, or person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted. (Bajenting v. Bañez, G.R. No. 166190, 20
September 2006).
➢ Officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not
disqualified from testifying, for or against a corporation
which is a party to an action upon a claim or demand
against the estate of a deceased person, as to any
matter of fact occurring before the death of such
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 13 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
deceased person. (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf, G.R. No.
L-2016, 23 August 1949).  • Dead man’s statute vs. marital disqualification rule
➢ When there is an imputation of fraud against the
Marital Disqualification
deceased which had been established beyond all doubt, Dead Man’s Statute
Rule
the plaintiff is not barred from testifying to such fraud.
The Dead Man’s Statute is not designed to shield Not completely disqualified Complete and absolute
wrongdoers and to render a plaintiff incompetent to but is only prohibited from disqualification.
testify to fraudulent transactions of the deceased (Ong testifying on the matters
Chua v. Carr, 53 Phil. 975; Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho, 96 therein specified.
Phil. 622).
➢ When the plaintiff is the executor, administrator or legal Applies only to a civil case or Applies to a civil or criminal
representative of the deceased, or the person of special proceeding over the case, subject to the two
unsound mind, the defendant or defendants are estate of the deceased or exceptions provided.
free to testify against the plaintiff (Tongco v. Vianzon, insane person.
50 Phil. 698).
➢ When the survivor's testimony refers to a negative fact.
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
(Mendezona v. Vda. de Goitia, 54 Phil. 557).
communication
➢ When the survivor's testimony is favorable to the
deceased (Icard v. Marasigan, 71 Phil. 419).
(a) Husband and wife (Marital Privilege Rule)
➢ Testimony on transactions with agent of deceased or • The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,
incompetent party (Goni, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et
cannot be examined without the consent of the other as
al., 144 SCRA 231).
to any communication received in confidence by one
• from the other during the marriage except in a civil case
How waived
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
➢ By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on prohibited
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
matters (Marella v. Reyes, 12 Phil. 1).
descendants or ascendants.
➢ By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters.
(Tongco v. Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698). • Applicability:
➢ By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters.
➢ Scope of protection extends during or after the
(Arroyo v. Azur, 76 Phil. 493).
marriage. (Rule 130, Sec. 24 [a]).
➢ When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by the
➢ Since the confidential nature of the communication is
representative of the estate or when counsel for the
the basis of the privilege, the same cannot be
representative cross-examined the plaintiff as to matters
invoked where it was not intended to be kept in
occurring during the deceased's lifetime (Goni, et al., v.
confidence by the spouse who received the same, as
Court of Appeals, et al., 144 SCRA 231).
in the case of a dying declaration of the husband to
his wife as to who was his assailant.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 14 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
• Waiver of protection:
(a) Failure to object to presentation; or
(b) Through any conduct that may be construed as
implied consent (Lacurom v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921,
10 March 2006).
• Spousal immunity rule vs. marital privilege rule
Spousal Immunity Rule Marital Privilege Rule
Can be invoked only if Can be claimed whether or
one of the spouses is a not the spouse is a party to the
party to the action. action.
Applies only if marriage is Can be claimed even after the
existing at the time the marriage had been dissolved.
testimony is offered.
Constitutes a total Applies only to confidential
prohibition against any communications between the
testimony for or against spouses.
the spouse of the witness.
(b) Attorney-client privilege rule
• An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
examined as to any communication made by the client to
him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with
a view to, professional employment, nor can an
attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined,
without the consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity.
• Requisites:
(i) Relationship of lawyer and client;
(ii) Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between them in the course of, or
with the view of professional employment;
(iii) Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of
the communication. (Rule 130, Sec. 24[b]; Disini v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, 22 June 2010).
• Persons covered:
(i) The attorney;
(ii) The attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
which has been acquired in such capacity (Rule 130,
Sec. 24[b]).
• Waiver of protection
➢ The client may waive the protection of the Attorney-
Client Privilege Rule. If the client waives the
privilege, even his attorney cannot invoke it.
• The Regala Doctrine
➢ General Rule: A lawyer may NOT invoke the privilege
and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his
client.
➢ Exceptions: (1) When a strong probability exists that
revealing the name would implicate that person in
the very same activity for which he sought the
lawyer’s advice; (2) When disclosure would open the
client to liability; (3) When the name would furnish
the only link that would form the chain of testimony
necessary to convict (Regala v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 105938, 20 September 1996).
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 15 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
(c) Physician-Patient Privilege
• A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of
the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment
given by him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a professional
capacity, which information was necessary to enable him
to act in capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient.
• Requisites:
(i) The physician is authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics;
(ii) The information was acquired or the advice or
treatment was given by him in his professional
capacity for the purpose of treating and curing the
patient
(iii) The information, advice or treatment, if revealed,
would blacken the reputation of the patient;
(iv) The privilege is invoked in a civil case whether the
patient is a party thereto or not (Rule 130, Sec. 24
[c]).
(d) Minister/Priest – Penitent Privilege
• A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the
• Meaning of “professional capacity”
➢ The physician may be considered to be acting in his
professional capacity when he attends to the patient
for curative, preventive, or palliative treatment. Thus,
only disclosures which would have been made to the
physician to enable him to "safely and efficaciously
to treat his patient" are covered by the privilege. (Lim
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, 25 September
1992).
• Waiver of protection
➢ This privilege belongs to the patient, so that it is only
he that can claim or waive it. It is waivable expressly
or impliedly (See Penn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Wiler,
100 Ind. 92).
➢ Example: Under Rule 28, the court may order a party
to submit to a physical or mental examination, so
long as the mental or physical condition is in dispute.
The party examined may request a report of the
examination. By doing so, he waives any privilege he
may have in that action regarding the testimony of
every other person who has examined him in respect
of the same examination (Rule 28, Sec. 4).
➢ Information elicited during consultation with a
physician in the presence of third parties removes
such information from the mantle of the privilege (Lim
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, 25 September
1992).
➢ What is protected is the tenor of the consultation.
The number of times a patient consulted with his
doctor is not privileged. (Lim v. Court of Appeals,
supra).
person making the confession, be examined as to any
confession made to or any advice given by him in his
professional character in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest
belongs.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 16 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
(e) State Secrets Rule
• A public officer cannot be examined during his term of
office or afterwards, as to communications made to him
in official confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure.
• Public interest is paramount. The rule that a public
officer cannot be examined as to communications made
to him in official confidence does not apply when there is
nothing to show that the public interest would suffer by
the disclosure in question (Banco Filipino v. Monetary
Board, 142 SCRA 523).
(f) Parental and Filial Privilege Rule
• No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants (Rule 130, Sec. 25).
• No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to
testify against his parents and grandparents, except
when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against
the descendant or by one parent against the other
(Family Code, Article 215).
(g) Newsman’s Privilege
• The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any
newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news
report or information appearing in said publication which
was related in confidence to him, unless the court or a
House or committee of Congress finds that such
revelation is demanded by the security of the State (See
R.A. No. 53, as amended by R.A. No. 1477, the “Shield
Law”).
(h) Privilege under the Labor Code
• All information and statements made at conciliation
proceedings shall be treated as privileged
communications and shall not be used as evidence in
the NLRC, and conciliators and similar officials shall not
testify in any court or body regarding any matter taken
up at the conciliation proceedings conducted by them
(Labor Code, Art. 233).
(i) Privilege under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
laws
▪ Mediation
➢ Information obtained through mediation shall be
privileged and confidential (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[a]).
➢ A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may
refuse to disclose and may prevent any other person
from disclosing a mediation communication (R.A. No.
9285, Sec. 9[b]).
➢ Confidential information obtained during
mediation shall not be subject to discovery and
shall be inadmissible in any adversarial
proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-judicial.
However, evidence or information that is otherwise
admissible or subject to discovery does not become
inadmissible or protected from discovery solely by
reason of its use in a mediation (R.A. No. 9285, Sec.
9[b]).
➢ In such an adversarial proceeding, the following
persons involved or previously involved in a
mediation may not be compelled to disclose
confidential information obtained during mediation:
(1) the parties to the dispute; (2) the mediator; (3) the
counsel for the parties; (4) the nonparty participants;
(5) any persons hired or engaged in connection with
the mediation as secretary, stenographer, clerk or
assistant; and (6) any other person who obtains or
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 17 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
possesses confidential information by reason of his/
her profession (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[c]).
• Arbitration
➢ The arbitration proceedings, including the records,
evidence and the arbitral award, shall be considered
confidential and shall not be published except (1)
with the consent of the parties, or (2) for the limited
purpose of disclosing to the court of relevant
documents in cases where resort to the court is
allowed herein.
➢ Provided, however, that the court in which the action
or the appeal is pending may issue a protective order
to prevent or prohibit disclosure of documents or
information containing secret processes,
developments, research and other information where
it is shown that the applicant shall be materially
prejudiced by an authorized disclosure thereof (R.A.
No. 9285, Sec. 23).
2. Testimonial privilege
Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege
3. Admissions and confessions
(a) Res inter alios acta rule
➢ The maxim res inter alios acta alteri nocere non
debet literally means “things done between
strangers ought not to injure those who are not
parties to them” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.,
1178).
➢ Though some claim that partnerships and joint
ventures are totally different animals, there are very
few rules that differentiate one from the other; thus,
joint ventures are deemed "akin" or similar to a
partnership. In fact, in joint venture agreements,
rules and legal incidents governing partnerships are
applied.
Obviously, as the intricate web of "ventures" entered
into by and among petitioners and MBMI was
executed to circumvent the legal prohibition against
corporations entering into partnerships, then the
relationship created should be deemed as
"partnerships," and the laws on partnership should
be applied. Thus, a joint venture agreement between
and among corporations may be seen as similar to
partnerships since the elements of partnership are
present.
Considering that the relationships found between
petitioners and MBMI are considered to be
partnerships, then the CA is justified in applying Sec.
29, Rule 130 of the Rules by stating that "by entering
into a joint venture, MBMI have a joint interest" with
Narra, Tesoro and McArthur (Narra Nickel Mining
and Development Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated
Mines Corp., G.R. No. 195580, 21 April 2014).
➢ The res inter alios acta rule has two branches, to
wit:
i. The rule that the rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission
of another, except as hereinafter provided
(Rule 130, Sec. 128); and
ii. The rule that the evidence that one did or did
not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the
same or similar thing at another time (Rule 132,
Sec. 34).
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 18 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
• Exceptions: (a.k.a. “vicarious admissions”)
(b) Admission by a party (a) Admissions by partner (Rule 130, Sec. 29);
(b) Admissions by agent or one who has a joint-interest with
➢ Admission and confession, distinguished the party (Rule 130, Sec. 29);
(c) Admission of co-conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
(d) Admission of privy of the party (Rule 130, Sec. 30).
Admission Confession

It is a statement of fact Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent

It involves an
which does not involve
acknowledgement of guilt • The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party may
an acknowledgement of
or liability. be given in evidence against such party under the following
guilt or liability.
requirements:
It may be express or (e) That the partnership, agency or joint interest is
It must be express.
tacit. established by evidence other than the act or
declaration;
It may be made by third It can be made only by the (f) That the act/declaration must have been within the
persons and, in certain party himself and, in certain scope of the partnership, etc;
cases, are admissible cases, are admissible (g) Such act/declaration must have been made during the
against a party. against his co-accused. existence of the partnership, etc (Rule 130, Sec. 29).

Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator

Sec. 26. Admissions of a party
• An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party as
to a relevant fact which may be given in evidence against
him (Rule 130, Sec. 2).
Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible
Sec. 28. Admission by third party
• General rule: The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced
by an act, declaration, or omission of another (Rule 130,
Sec. 28). *This is also known as the first branch of the Res
Inter Alios Acta Rule (from “res inter alios acta alteri nocere
non debet”).
• The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in
evidence against the co-conspirator :
(h) The conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde;
(i) The admission was made during the existence of the
conspiracy; and
(j) The admission relates to the conspiracy itself. (Rule 130,
Sec. 30; Tamargo v. Antiporda, G.R. No. 177727, 19
January 2010).
• This rule applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration of a
co-conspirator, but NOT to testimony given on the stand at
the trial,  where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant. And while the testimony of
accomplices or confederates in crime is always subject to
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 19 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
grave suspicion, "coming as it does from a polluted source,"
and should be received with great caution and doubtingly
examined, it is nevertheless admissible and competent
(People v. Serrano, G.R. No. L-7973, 27 April 1959).
Sec. 31. Admission by privies
• Where one derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title,
in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.
• Requisites:
(a) There must be a relation of privity between the party
and the declarant;
(b) The admission was made by the declarant, as
predecessor in interest, while holding title to the
property; and
(c) The admission is in relation to said property (Rule 130,
Sec. 31).
• Privity in estate may have arisen by: (1) succession; (2) by
acts mortis causa; or (3) by acts inter vivos.
Sec. 32. Admission by silence
• Requisites -- Any act or declaration made in the presence
and within the observation of a party who does or says
nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to
call for action or comment if not true, may be given in
evidence against him, under the following requisites:
(a) He must have heard or observed the act or declaration
of the other person;
(b) He must have had the opportunity to deny it;
(c) He must have understood the statement.
(d) He must have an interest to object as he would
naturally have done if the statement was not true;
(e) The facts are within his knowledge; and
(f) he fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his
silence is material to the issue. (Rule 130, Sec. 32;
People v. Ciobal, G.R. No. 86220, 20 April 1990; People
v. Ranario, 49 Phil. 220)
• When not applicable
➢ Accused’s refusal to be a witness during trial (Art. III,
Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution).
➢ Silence during official investigation (Art. III, Sec. 12,
1987 Constitution; U. S. v. De la Cruz, 12 Phil., 87).
➢ Where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent
[e.g. acting on advice of counsel]. (People v. Fong, G.R.
No. L-7615, 14 March 1956).
• When applicable to statements made in writing
The rule on admission by silence applies to adverse
statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual
correspondence with the declarant. However, if there was no
such mutual correspondence, the rule is relaxed on the
theory that while the party would have immediately reacted
by a denial if the statements were orally made in his
presence, such prompt response can generally not be
expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply
(Villanueva v. Balaguer, G.R. No. 180197, 23 June 2009).
• Voluntary re-enactment
Voluntary participation in the re-enactment of the crime
conducted by police is considered tacit admission of
complicity. In such cases, the accused actually committed
positive acts without protest or denial when he was free to
refuse. Had he not actually participated in the commission of
the offense for which he is charged, he would have
protested being made to take part in the reenactment
thereof (People v. Fong, G.R. No. L-7615, 14 March 1956).
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 20 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
Sec. 33. Confession
• The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included
therein, may be given in evidence against him (Rule 130, Sec.
33).
• Judicial confession - one made before a court in which the
case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings
therein; can sustain conviction by itself.
➢ requisites:
(a) It must be a categorical acknowledgement of guilt;
(b) It must be made by an accused in a criminal case; and
(c) It is without any exculpatory statement or explanation.
• Extrajudicial confession -- one made in any other place or
occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated
by evidence of the corpus delicti. (Rule 133, Sec. 3).
➢ Requisites:
(a) It must be voluntary;
(b) It must be made with the assistance of a competent
and independent counsel;
(c) It must be express; and
(d) It must be in writing (People v. Domantay, G.R. No.
130612, 11 May 1999).
➢ Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime; it is the
fact that a crime has actually been committed (People v.
De Leon, G.R. No. 180762, 4 March 2009).
➢ In arson, the corpus delicti is generally satisfied by proof of
the bare occurrence of the fire,  e.g., the charred remains
of a house burned down and of its having been
intentionally caused.
➢ In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is the fact of
death (People v. Garcia, 99 Phil. 381), which may be
proved even circumstantially (People v. Sasota, 91 Phil.
111; People v. Moro Ansang, 93 Phil. 44).
➢ In robbery or theft, the fact of loss (People v. Niem, 75
Phil. 668).
➢ In an affray, the fact that pistol shots were heard and a
bystander was killed by one of the shots constitute
evidence of corpus delicti, which is the violent death of a
person, whether feloniously caused or not (People v.
Nocum, 77 Phil. 1018)
• Extrajudicial confession is not binding upon third parties
➢ An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the
confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-
accused, and is considered as hearsay against them.
➢ The reason for this rule is that on a principle of good faith
and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding
upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his
conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly
inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should
be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized stranger
(Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010).
• Extrajudicial confessions, when admissible against co-
accused
While the general rule is that an extra-judicial confession of an
accused is binding only upon himself and is not admissible
against his co-accused, it has been held that such a
confession is admissible against a co-accused where the
confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation by the co-conspirator (People
v. Condemna, L-22426, 29 May 1968), and where the co-
conspirator's confession is corroborated by other
evidence (People v. Victor, G.R. No. 75154-55, 6 F e b r u a r y
1990).
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 21 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
• Extrajudicial confession not admissible when confessant
was not assisted by counsel
An extrajudicial confession executed without the assistance of
independent and competent counsel is inadmissible in
evidence. (People v. Velarde, G.R. No. 139333, 18 July 2002).
A municipal mayor cannot be considered as a competent
and  independent  counsel qualified to assist a person under
custodial investigation (People v. Velarde, supra).
• Extrajudicial confession vs. res gestae
Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made without
counsel, but it was spontaneously made by the accused
immediately after the assault, the same is admissible, not
under the confession rule, but as part of the res gestae
(People v. Tampus, G.R. No. L-44690, 28 March 1980).
• Statements during press-conference
The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not
apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner
whereby accused orally admitted having committed a crime.
The rights under Sec. 12 are guaranteed to preclude the
slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the
accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from
freely and voluntarily telling the truth. (People v. Mantung,
G.R. No. 130372, 20 July 1999).
4. Previous conduct as evidence
Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence
• Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time
is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another time(Rule 130, Sec. 34).
• However, such evidence may be received to prove a specific
intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like (Rule 130, Sec. 34).
Sec. 35. Unaccepted offer
5. Testimonial knowledge
Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal
knowledge; hearsay excluded
• Hearsay evidence - any evidence, whether oral or
documentary, whose probative value is based not on
personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of
some other person not on the witness stand.
• If a party does not object, the hearsay evidence is
admissible. Illustration: The repeated failure of the party to
cross-examine the witness is an implied waiver of such right
and the testimony of the said witness who died thereafter
should not be excluded from the record (Savory
Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, G.R. No.
L-38964, 31 January 31).
• But hearsay evidence not objected to is admissible, it has no
probative value. Hearsay evidence whether objected to even
if or not has no probative value (People v. Parungao, G.R.
No. 125812, 28 November 1996).
• The real basis for the exclusion of hearsay evidence lies in
the fact that hearsay testimony is not subject to the tests
which can ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of the
truth of testimony, since the declarant is not present and
available for cross-examination (Mollaneda v. Umacob, G.R.
No. 140128, 6 June 2001).
• Two concepts of hearsay evidence:
(c) Second hand information (not derived from personal
knowledge of witness); and
(d) Testimony by a witness derived from his personal
knowledge but the adverse party is not given
opportunity to cross-examine.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 22 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
• Principle of independently relevant statements
➢ The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds
that conversations communicated to a witness by a third
person may be admitted as proof that, regardless of their
truth or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to
the making of such statements is not secondary but
primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b)
is circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact
(Republic v. Heirs of Alejega, G.R. No. 146030, 3
December 2002).
6. Exceptions to the hearsay rule
Sec. 37. Dying Declaration
• Dying declaration is an ante mortem statement or
statement in articulo mortis.
• Requisites:
(a) That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of
that fact;
(b) That the declaration refers to the cause and the
surrounding circumstances of such death;
(c) That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is
competent to testify to;
(d) That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the
declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry (People v.
Serenas, G.R. No. 188124, 29 June 2010).
• It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid
succession of death that renders the dying declaration
admissible (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 111149, 5
September 1997).
• In the case at bar, it appears that not all the requisites of a
dying declaration are present. From the records, no
questions relative to the second requisite was propounded to
Januario. It does not appear that the declarant was under
the consciousness of his impending death when he made
the statements. The rule is that, in order to make a dying
declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and
imminent death must be entered by the declarant. It is the
belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of
death in point of fact that renders a dying declaration
admissible. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned
all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly
impending. Thus, the utterances made by Januario could not
be considered as a dying declaration (People of the
Philippines v. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022, 7 April 2014).
•
• Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of
recovery -- It is sufficient that circumstances are such as to
inevitably lead to the conclusion that at the time the
declaration was made, the declarant would not expect to
survive the injury from which he actually died. The degree
and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death
supervened thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the
victim's consciousness of his impending death (People v.
Tanaman, et al., G.R. No. 71768, 28 July 1987).
• Mere gesture of a dying woman inconclusive -- The
gesture of a dying woman in pointing to a direction, when
asked for the identity of her assailant, is too vague to be
given such probative value in determining the culpability of
the accused (People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, 3 July 1987).
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 23 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes

Sec. 38. Declaration against interest

• Admissions v. declaration against interest
• Requisites:
(a) The declaration is made by: Admissions Declaration Against
(i) A person deceased; or Interest
(ii) A person who is unable to testify (i.e. in foreign
It is made by a party to a It is made by a person who is
country or with physical/mental impairments)
litigation or by one in privity neither a party nor in privity
(b) The declaration is against the interest of the declarant:
with or identified in legal with a party to the suit
(c) The fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it
interest with such party (Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No.
was made so far contrary to declarant’s own interest,
(Unchuan v. Lozada, G.R. No. 152364, 15 April 2010).
that a reasonable man in his position would not have
172671, 16 April 2009, 585
made the declaration, unless he believed it to be true.
SCRA 421, 435).
((Rule 130, Sec. 38; Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 111692, 9 February 1996).
It is admissible whether or not It is admissible only when
• The theory under which declarations against interest are the declarant is available as a the declarant is unavailable
received in evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is witness. (Unchuan v. Lozada, as a witness. (Lazaro v.
that the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of supra) Agustin, supra).
such evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of
such declaration asserts facts which are against his own It is not necessarily against the The declaration must
pecuniary or moral interest (Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. No. interest of the admitter. necessarily be against
146556, 19 April 2006). declarant’s interest.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 24 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
Sec. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree
• Requisites:
(a) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a
member, by consanguinity or affinity, of the same family
as the subject;
(b) Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that
family ante litem motam. (Rule 130, Sec. 40; People v.
Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, 27 December 2002).
Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree
• Requisites:
(a) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a
member, by consanguinity or affinity, of the same family
as the subject;
(b) (2) Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that
family ante litem motam. (Rule 130, Sec. 40; People v.
Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, 27 December 2002).
Sec. 41. Common reputation
• Common reputation refers to general reputation; definite
opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is
known or exists.
• Requisites:
(a) The subject of subject of inquiry must be facts of public
or general interest more than 30 years old, respecting
marriage or moral character;
(b) The evidence must refer to facts ante litem motam;
(c) The facts may be established by:
➢ Testimonial evidence of competent witness;
➢ Monuments and inscription in public places; or
➢ Documents containing statements of reputation.
Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae
• Res gestae is a Latin phrase which literally means "things
done.“ (Capila v. People, G.R. No. 146161, 17 July 2006).
• Two types:
(a) Spontaneous statements; and
➢ The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant
himself did not testify and the testimony of the
witness who heard the declarant complies with the
following requisites:
(i) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence;
(ii) the statements were made before the declarant
had time to contrive or devise; and
(iii) the statements concerned the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending
circumstances (prior or subsequent) (Rule 130,
Sec. 42; Maturillas v. People, G.R. No. 163217,
18 April 2006).
➢ A sudden attack on a group peacefully eating
lunch on a school campus is a startling
occurrence. Considering that the statements of
the bystanders were made immediately after the
startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible
as evidence given in res gestae (People v.
Feliciano, G.R. No. 196735, 5 May 2014).
(b) Contemporaneous statements or verbal acts. (Rule 130,
Sec. 42)
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 25 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
➢ Requisites:
(a) The principal act to be characterized must be
equivocal;
(b) The equivocal act must be relevant to the issue;
(c) The verbal act must be contemporaneous with
the equivocal act;
(d) The verbal act must give legal significance to the
equivocal act (Talidano v. Falcom Maritime &
Allied Service, Inc. G.R. No. 172031, 14 July
2008).
Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business
• Requisites:
(a) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable
to testify;
(b) The entries were made at or near the time of the
transaction to which they refer;
(c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in
the entries;
(d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in
the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual,
moral or religious;
(e) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course
of business or duty (Rule 130, Sec. 43; Jose, Jr. v
Michaelmar Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 169606, 27
November 2009).
• Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual
reliability because their regularity and continuity are
calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of
precision. If the entries are financial, the records are
routinely balanced and audited. In actual experience, the
whole of the business world function in reliance of such kind
of records (LBP v. Monet’s Export and Manufacturing Corp.,
G.R. No. 184971, 19 April 2010).
Sec. 44. Entries in official records
• Requisites:
(a) Entries were made by: (i) (i) a public officer in the
performance of his duties; or (ii) by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
(b) The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated
by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports
made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same;
and
(c) Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in
the official records (Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, G.R.
No. 162243, 3 December 2009).
• Entrant need not be presented -- The presentation of the
records themselves would, therefore, have been admissible
as an exception to the hearsay rule even if the public officer/
s who prepared them was/were not presented in court,
provided the above requisites could be adequately proven
(Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, supra; Africa v. Caltex, 123
Phil. 272).
• Police records of vehicular accidents -- The presentation
of the police report itself is admissible as an exception to the
hearsay rule even if the police investigator who prepared it
was not presented in court, as long as the requisites under
Rule 130, Sec. 44 could be adequately proved (Malayan
Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alberto, G.R. No. 194320, 1 February
2012).
Sec. 45. Commercial lists and the like
• A document is a commercial list if:
(a) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation;
(b) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical
or other published compilation;
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 26 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
(c) said compilation is published for the use of persons
engaged in that occupation, and
(d) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the
same occupation (Rule 130, Sec. 45; PNOC Shipping v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107518, 8 October 1998).
Sec. 46. Learned treatises
• Requisites:
(a) The court takes judicial judicial notice of published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history,
law, science or art; or
(b) A witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of
the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his profession or calling as an expert in the
subject (Rule 130, Sec. 46).
Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
• Requisites:
(a) Witness is dead or unable to testify;
(b) His testimony or deposition was given in a former case
or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the
same parties or those representing the same interests;
(c) The former case involved the same subject as that in the
present case, although on different causes of action;
(d) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is
the same issue involved in the present case; and
(e) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine
the witness in the former case.
• Meaning of “unable to testify” -- The phrase "unable to
testify" refers to a physical inability to appear at the
witness stand and to give a testimony. Hence
notwithstanding the deletion of the phrase "out of the
Philippines," which previously appeared in Section 47, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court, absence from jurisdiction may
still constitute inability to testify under the same rule
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, 16
December 2011).
• Meaning of “same parties” -- To render the testimony of a
witness admissible at a later trial or action, the parties to the
first proceeding must be the same as the parties to the later
proceeding. Physical identity, however, is not required;
substantial identity or identity of interests suffices, as where
the subsequent proceeding is between persons who
represent the parties to the prior proceeding by privity in law,
in blood, or in estate. The term "privity" denotes mutual or
successive relationships to the same rights of property
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra).
7. Opinion rule
Sec. 48. General rule
• The opinion of a witness is NOT admissible (Rule 130, Sec.
48).
• Exceptions:
(a) Opinion of expert witness;
(b) Opinion of ordinary witness.
Sec. 49. Opinion of expert witness
• The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is
shown to possess, may be received in evidence. (Rule 130,
Sec. 48).
• Courts are not bound by expert’s testimony
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states
that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training, which he is shown
to possess, may be received in evidence. The use of the
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 27 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
word "may" signifies that the use of opinion of an
expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the
part of the courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean,
too, that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert
witness. The testimony of an expert witness must be
construed to have been presented not to sway the court in
favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the
determination of the issue before it, and is for the court to
adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the
attendant facts and the applicable law (Tabao v. People,
G.R. No. 187246, 20 July 2011).
Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses
• The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given,
may be received in evidence regarding; (a) the identity of a
person about whom he has adequate knowledge; (b) a
handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; (c) the
mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted; and (d) his impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person (Rule 130,
Sec. 48).
• Criteria in Qualifying as an Expert Witness- In our
jurisdiction, the criterion remains to be the expert
witness'  special knowledge experience and practical
training that qualify him/her to explain highly technical
medical matters to the Court (Casumpang, et al. v.
Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, 11 March 2015).
• Probative value of a handwriting expert witness’
testimony- The opinion of handwriting experts are not
necessarily binding upon the court, the expert’s function
being to place before the court data upon which the court
can form its own opinion. This principle holds true especially
when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual
comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with
those of the currently existing ones. A finding of forgery does
not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting
experts, because the judge must conduct an independent
examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at
a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity (Garbo v.
Spouses Garabato, G.R. No. 200013, 14 January 2015).
• Expert witness not necessary if the res ipsa loquitur
doctrine is applicable- Where the application of the
principle of res ipsa loquitur is warranted, an expert
testimony may be dispensed with in medical negligence
cases. Resort to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as an
exception to the requirement of an expert testimony in
medical negligence cases may be availed of if the following
essential requisites are satisfied: (1) the accident was of a
kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is
negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the
injury was under the exclusive control of the person
charged; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due
to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured
(Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital, et al., G.R. No. 210445, 7
December 2015).
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 28 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes

8. Character evidence

Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible;

exceptions

• General rule: Character evidence is not admissible (Rule

130, Sec. 51).
• Exceptions:
(a) Criminal cases
➢ Accused – may prove his good moral character
pertinent to the moral trait in the offense charged.
➢ Prosecution – may present character evidence
pertaining to accused’s bad moral character pertinent
to the moral trait involved in the offense charged only
in rebuttal.
➢ Offended party – the good or bad moral character of
the offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.

(b) Civil cases

➢ Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil
case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case.
➢ Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached
(Rule 130, Sec. 51).

• Rape shield rule -- In prosecutions for rape, evidence of

complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/
her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the
extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material
and relevant to the case (R.A. No. 8505, Sec. 6).
•